Influence of Perceived Risk of Blockchain Art Trading on User Attitude and Behavioral Intention
2. Literature Review
2.1. Art Market
2.2.1. The Definition of Blockchain
2.2.2. Blockchain and Pain Points of the Art Market
2.3. Perceived Risk and Influencing Factors
2.3.3. Government Support
3. Research Method
3.1. Research Process Design
3.2. Definition of Dimensions
3.3. Research Hypotheses and Structures
3.4. Data Collection and Questionnaire Design
3.5. Data Analysis Methods
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Basic Narrative Statistics
4.2. Hypothesis and Model Validation
4.2.1. Dimension Reliability
4.2.2. Correlation Analysis to Verify Construction Validity
4.2.3. Model Path Analysis
4.2.4. Results and Discussion
5.1. Implications and Contribution
5.2. Research Limitations and Future Studies
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
- Wang, Y.C.; Chen, C.L.; Deng, Y.-Y. Museum-authorization of digital rights: A sustainable and traceable cultural relics exhibition mechanism. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Art/Basel. The Impact of Covid-19 on the Gallery Sector. Press Release Basel 2020. Available online: https://d2u3kfwd92fzu7.cloudfront.net/The%20Impact%20of%20COVID-19%20Survey_Press%20Release-2.pdf (accessed on 14 July 2021).
- Nakamoto, S. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Bitcoin Org. 2008. Available online: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (accessed on 13 July 2021).
- Research and Markets. Blockchain Market (Global Forecast to 2025) 2020. Available online: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5025113/blockchain-market-by-component-platform-and?w=4&utm_source=BW&utm_medium=PressRelease&utm_code=zgncsk (accessed on 13 July 2021).
- Sustainability Solution or Climate Calamity? The Dangers and Promise of Cryptocurrency Technology, United Nations News. Available online: https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094362 (accessed on 26 October 2021).
- Artprice. The Art Market in 2020. Available online: https://imgpublic.artprice.com/pdf/zh-the-art-market-in-2020.pdf (accessed on 13 October 2021).
- Grazioli, S.; Jarvenpaa, S.L. Perils of internet fraud: An empirical investigation of deception and trust with experienced Internet consumers. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. A Syst. Hum. 2000, 30, 395–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Jacoby, J.; Kaplan, L.B. The components of perceived risk. In Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Chicago, IL, USA, 3–5 November 1972. [Google Scholar]
- Griswold, W. Cultures and Societies in a Changing World, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: California, CA, USA, 2004; pp. 154–196. [Google Scholar]
- Alexander, V.D. Sociology of the Arts Exploring Fine and Popular Forms; Wiley-Blackwell: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 1–388. [Google Scholar]
- Buchko, C. Codex CEO Mark Lurie Talks Ethereal and the Future of Blockchain Art. Conin Central. 2018. Available online: https://coincentral.com/codex-ceo-mark-lurie-interview/ (accessed on 24 July 2021).
- Hiscox. Hiscox Online Art Trading Report 2019. Available online: https://www.hiscox.co.uk/sites/uk/files/documents/2019-04/hiscox-online-art-trading-report-2019.pdf (accessed on 14 July 2021).
- Kandaswamy, R.; Furlonger, D. Hype Cycle for Blockchain Technologies. Gartner. 2018. Available online: https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/3883991/hype-cycle-for-blockchain-technologies-2018 (accessed on 25 July 2020).
- Swan, M. Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy; O’Reilly Media, Inc.: Newton, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Hiscox. Hiscox Online Art Trading Report 2020. Available online: https://www.hiscox.co.uk/sites/uk/files/documents/2019-04/hiscox-online-art-trading-report-2020.pdf (accessed on 14 July 2021).
- The Art Market. The Art Basel and UBS Global Art Market Report 2019. Art Basel Press Release. 2019. Available online: https://d2u3kfwd92fzu7.cloudfront.net/The%20Art%20Market%202019_Press%20Release-2.pdf (accessed on 30 July 2021).
- Navas, R.; Chang, H.J.; Khan, S.; Chong, J.W. Sustainability Transparency and Trustworthiness of Traditional and Blockchain Ecolabels: A Comparison of Generations X and Y Consumers. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salisbury, L. Art forgers—Criminals or heroes? In the post-truth era, it’s time for an unequivocal answer. Soc. Res. Int. Q. 2018, 85, 827–836. [Google Scholar]
- Dekking, N. Blockchain, The Holy Grail? Industry Voice. Art Dealer Finance. 2008. Available online: https://2018.amr.tefaf.com/voices/blockchain-technology-a-start-of-an-art-market-revolution (accessed on 23 July 2021).
- Lee, Y.S. Analysis on trends of artworks blockchain platform. Int. J. Adv. Cult. Technol. 2019, 7, 149–157. [Google Scholar]
- Golosova, J.; Romanovs, A. Overview of the blockchain technology cases. In Proceedings of the 2018 59th International Scientific Conference, Information Technology and Management Science of Riga Technical University (ITMS), Riga, Latvia, 10–12 October 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Whitaker, A. Art and Blockchain: A Primer, History, and Taxonomy of Blockchain Use Cases in the Arts. Artivate 2019, 8, 21–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hiscox. Hiscox Online Art Trading Report 2018. Available online: https://arttactic.com/product/hiscox-online-art-trading-report-2018 (accessed on 15 July 2021).
- Whitaker, A.; Kraussl, R. Democratizing Art Markets: Fractional Ownership and The Securitization of Art. Semantic Scholar. 2018. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Democratizing-Art-Markets%3A-Fractional-Ownership-and-Whitaker-Kr%C3%A4ussl/bf26cac648cd38b550fb616295d00fa6dce7b10a (accessed on 30 July 2021).
- Wang, S.; Archer, N. Strategic choice of electronic marketplace functionalities: A buyer-supplier relationship perspective. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2017, 10, JCMC1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Y. Blockchain, Privacy, and Artwork Registries: Consensus between Constraints. SSRN 2021. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3857241 (accessed on 27 September 2021).
- Joo, J.; Han, Y. An Evidence of Distributed Trust in Blockchain-Based Sustainable Food Supply Chain. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salmerón-Manzano, E.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. The role of Smart contracts in sustainability: Worldwide research trends. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Dowling, G.R.; Staelin, R. A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. J. Consum. Res. 1994, 20, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sweeney, J.C.; Soutar, G.N.; Johnson, L.W. The role of perceived risk in the quality-value relationship: A study in a retail environment. J. Retail. 1999, 75, 77–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, R.A. Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking; Hancock, R.S., Ed.; American Marketing Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 1960; Volume 6, pp. 389–398. [Google Scholar]
- Kotler, P. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control, 9th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Vinhal Nepomuceno, M.; Laroche, M.; Richard, M.; Eggert, A. Relationship between intangibility and perceived risk: Moderating effect of privacy, system security and general security concerns. J. Consum. Mark. 2012, 29, 176–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ram, S. A Model of Innovation Resistance in NA—Advances in Consumer Research; Wallendorf, M., Anderson, P., Eds.; Association for Consumer Research: Provo, UT, USA, 1987; Volume 14, pp. 208–212. [Google Scholar]
- Ram, S.; Sheth, J.N. Consumer resistance to innovations: The marketing problem and its solutions. J. Consum. Mark. 1989, 6, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zand, D.E. Trust and managerial problem solving. Adm. Sci. Q. 1972, 17, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, C.; Lee, M.K.O. Trust in internet shopping: A proposed model and measurement instrument. In Proceedings of the America’s Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS’2000), Long Beach, CA, USA, 10–13 August 2020; p. 406. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.860.3707&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 27 September 2021).
- Lu, B.; Fan, W.; Zhou, M. Social presence, trust, and social commerce purchase intention: An empirical research. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 56, 225–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hwang, Y.; Kim, D.J. Customer self-service systems: The effects of perceived Web quality with service contents on enjoyment, anxiety, and e-trust. Decis. Support Syst. 2007, 43, 746–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, S.; Ying, T.; Zhou, L.; Wang, T. Enhancing customer trust in peer-to-peer accommodation: A “soft” strategy via social presence. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 79, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Pinxteren, M.M.; Wetzels, R.W.; Rüger, J.; Pluymaekers, M.; Wetzels, M. Trust in humanoid robots: Implications for services marketing. J. Serv. Mark. 2019, 33, 507–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Shi, S.; Gong, Y.; Gursoy, D. Antecedents of trust and adoption intention toward artificially intelligent tecommendation dystems in travel planning: A heuristic-systematic model. J. Travel Res. 2021, 60, 1714–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salam, A.F.; Rao, H.R.; Pegels, C.C. An Investigation of Consumer-Perceived Risk on Electronic Commerce Trading: The role of Institutional Trust and Economic Incentive in a Social Exchange Framework. In Proceedings of the AMCIS, Baltimore, MD, USA, 14–16 August 1998; pp. 335–337. Available online: https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1541&context=amcis1998 (accessed on 28 July 2021).
- Antwi, S.; Bei, W.; Ameyaw, M.A. Investigating the moderating role of social support in online shopping intentions. J. Mark. Consum. Res. 2021, 78, 27–34. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Samuel-Antwi-3/publication/351436209_Investigating_the_Moderating_Role_of_Social_Suport_in_Online_Shopping_Intentions/links/60978463458515d31507f6df/Investigating-the-Moderating-Role-of-Social-Support-in-Online-Shopping-Intentions.pdf (accessed on 22 October 2021).
- Kim, H.W.; Xu, Y.; Koh, J. A comparison of online trust building factors between potential customers and repeat customers. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2004, 5, 392–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C.P.; Huang, H.Y. Modeling investment intention in online P2P lending: An elaboration likelihood perspective. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2021, 39, 1134–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lockl, J.; Stoetzer, J.C. Trust-free banking missed the point: The effect of distrust in banks on the adoption of decentralized finance. In Proceedings of the 29th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Marrakech, Morocco, 14–16 June 2021; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jens-Christian-Stoetzer/publication/351082259_Trust-free_Banking_Missed_the_Point_-_The_Effect_of_Distrust_in_Banks_on_the_Adoption_of_Decentralized_Finance/links/6083de44881fa114b4242c65/Trust-free-Banking-Missed-the-Point-The-Effect-of-Distrust-in-Banks-on-the-Adoption-of-Decentralized-Finance.pdf (accessed on 22 October 2021).
- Al-Swidi, A.K.; Enazi, M.A. The trust in the intermediaries and the intention to use electronic government services: A case of a developing country Electronic Government. Int. J. 2020, 17, 27–54. Available online: https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/EG.2021.112942 (accessed on 22 October 2021). [CrossRef]
- Gefen, D.; Karahanna, E.; Straub, D.W. Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 51–90. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220260204_Trust_and_TAM_in_Online_Shopping_An_Integrated_Model (accessed on 27 September 2021). [CrossRef]
- McKnight, D.H.; Choudhury, V.; Kacmar, C. The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: A trust building model. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2002, 11, 297–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wingreen, S.C.; Baglione, S.L. Untangling the antecedents and covariates of e-commerce trust: Institutional trust vs. knowledge-based trust. Electron. Mark. 2005, 15, 246–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Du, J.; Zhang, W.; Tian, X.; Kou, G. Innovation quantity or quality? The role of political connections. Emerg. Mark. Rev. 2021, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Du, J.; Zhang, W. Opening the box of subsidies: Which is more effective for innovation? Eurasian Bus. Rev. 2021, 11, 421–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, X.; Kou, G.; Zhang, W. Geographic Distance, Venture Capital and Technological Performance: Evidence from Chinese Enterprises; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; Volume 158, Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162520309811?via%3Dihub (accessed on 21 October 2021).
- Chatterjee, S.; Bhattacharjee, K.K.; Tsai, C.W. Impact of peer influence and government support for successful adoption of technology for vocational education: A quantitative study using PLS-SEM technique. Qual. Quant. 2021, 55, 2041–2064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sekaran, U.; Bougie, R. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, 5th ed.; John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Kambil, A.; Van Heck, E. Reengineering the Dutch flower auctions: A framework for analyzing exchange organizations. Inf. Syst. Res. 1998, 9, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Orji, I.J.; Kusi-Sarpong, S.; Huang, S.; Vazquez-Brust, D. Evaluating the factors that influence blockchain adoption in the freight logistics industry. Transp. Res. E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2020, 141, 102025. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1366554520306761 (accessed on 27 September 2021). [CrossRef]
- Polatoglu, V.N.; Ekin, S. An empirical investigation of the Turkish consumers’ acceptance of Internet banking services. Int. J. bank Mark. 2021, 19, 156–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. Attitude Structure and Behavior. Attitude Structure and Function; Pratkanis, A.R., Breckler, S.J., Greenwald, A.G., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1989; pp. 241–274. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychol. Bull. 1975, 82, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bocart, F.; Oosterlinck, K. Discoveries of fakes: Their impact on the art market. Econ. Lett. 2011, 113, 124–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bajari, P.; Hortaçsu, A. Economic insights from internet auctions. J. Econ. Lit. 2004, 42, 457–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siegrist, M.; Zingg, A. The role of public trust during pandemics implications for crisis communication. Eur. Psychol. 2014, 19, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siegrist, M.; Luchsinger, L.; Bearth, A. The impact of trust and risk perception on the acceptance of measures to reduce COVID-19 Cases. Risk Anal. 2021, 41, 787–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerber, B.; Neeley, G.W. Perceived risk and citizen preferences for government management of routine hazards. Policy Stud. J. 2005, 33, 395–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saberi, S.; Kouhizadeh, M.; Sarkis, J.; Shen, L. Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 2117–2135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Clohessy, T.; Acton, T.; Rogers, N. Blockchain adoption: Technological, organisational and environmental considerations. In Business Transformation Through Blockchain; Treiblmaier, H., Beck, R., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 47–76. [Google Scholar]
- Strub, P.J.; Priest, T.B. Two patterns of establishing trust: The marijuana user. Sociol. Focus 1976, 9, 399–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarvenpaa, S.L.; Tractinsky, N.; Vitale, M. Consumer trust in an Internet store. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2000, 1, 45–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shneiderman, B. Designing trust into online experiences. Commun. ACM 2000, 43, 57–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Financial Conduct Authority. Regulatory Sandbox. London: Financial Conduct Authority 2015. Available online: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/research/regulatory-sandbox.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2021).
- UK Government Chief Science Adviser. FinTech Futures: The UK as A World Leader in Financial Technologies. London: Government Office for Science 2015. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/413095/gs-15-3-fintech-futures.pdf (accessed on 27 September 2021).
- Mou, J.; Shin, D.; Cohen, J. Trust and risk in consumer acceptance of e-services. Electron. Commer. Res. 2017, 17, 255–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, D. Blockchain: The emerging technology of digital trust. Telemat. Inform. 2019, 45, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geyskens, I.; Steenkamp, J.B.E.M.; Scheer, L.K.; Kumar, N. The effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment: A trans-Atlantic study. Int. J. Res. Mark. 1996, 13, 303–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zucker, L. Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920. Res. Organ. Behav. 1986, 8, 53–111. [Google Scholar]
- Hong, I.B.; Cho, H. The impact of consumer trust on attitudinal loyalty and purchase intentions in B2C e-marketplaces: Intermediary trust vs. seller trust. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2011, 31, 467–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, C.C.; Rogers, P.; White, R.E. Online reverse auctions: An overview. J. Int. Technol. Inf. Manag. 2004, 13, 5. [Google Scholar]
- Herschlag, M.; Zwick, R. Internet Auctions-Popular and Professional Literature Review. ResearchGate 2000. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2459222_Internet_Auctions_--_Popular_and_Professional_Literature_Review (accessed on 29 September 2021).
- Gefen, D. Building Users’ Trust in Freeware Providers and the Effects of this Trust on Users’ Perceptions of Usefulness, Ease of Use and Intended Use of Freeware; Georgia State University: Atlanta, GA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Slade, E.L.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Piercy, N.C.; Williams, M.D. Modeling consumers’ adoption intentions of remote mobile payments in the United Kingdom: Extending UTAUT with innovativeness, risk, and trust. Psychol. Mark. 2015, 32, 860–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beltrametti, S.; Marrone, J.V. Market responses to court rulings: Evidence from antiquities auctions. J. Law Econ. 2016, 59, 913–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latif, M.I.; Zakaria, Z. Factors determine the behavioural intention in adopting the blockchain technology by Malaysian Public Sector Officers. J. Adv. Res. Bus. Manag. Stud. 2020, 20, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, L.W.; Tan, G.W.H.; Lee, V.H.; Ooi, K.B.; Sohal, A. unearthing the determinants of blockchain adoption in supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 2100–2123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Moon, J.W.; Kim, Y.G. Extending the TAM for World-Wide-Web context. Inf. Manag. 2001, 38, 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A. Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Q. 2001, 25, 351–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C.S.; Wu, S.; Tsai, R.J. Integrating perceived playfulness into expectation-confirmation model for web portal context. Inf. Manag. 2005, 42, 683–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2006; Volume 6. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.; Prentice Hall College Div: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Gaski, J.F.; Nevin, J.R. The differential effects of exercised and unexercised power sources in a marketing channel. J. Mark. Res. 1985, 22, 130–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albayati, H.; Kim, S.K.; Rho, J.J. Accepting financial transactions using blockchain technology and cryptocurrency: A customer perspective approach. Technol. Soc. 2020, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mario, A.O.; Jorge, P.B.; Matías-Clavero Gustavo, M.C. Variables influencing cryptocurrency use: A technology acceptance model in Spain. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 475. Available online: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00475 (accessed on 29 October 2021).
- Zhang, W.; Zhang, X.; Tian, X.; Sun, F. Economic policy uncertainty nexus with corporate risk-taking: The role of state ownership and corruption expenditure. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 2021, 65, 101496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, M.; Su, C.W.; Xiao, Y.D.; Zhang, S. Should gold be held under global economic policy uncertainty? J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2020, 21, 725–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Su, C.W.; Qin, M.; Tao, R.; Zhang, X. Is the status of gold threatened by Bitcoin? Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2020, 33, 420–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, R.; Su, C.W.; Yaqoob, T.; Hammal, M. Do Financial and Non-Financial Stocks Hedge Against Lockdown in Covid-19? An Event Study Analysis. Taylor Fr. Online 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Perceived risk (PR)||Risks felt by individuals when using blockchain in art trading.||Jacoby &|
|External variables||Auction house initiative (AHI):|
The influence of auction house initiative on the application of blockchain technology in art trading.
|Kambil & Van Heck |
|Government support (GS):|
The influence of government support for blockchain technology development on art trading.
|Orji et al. |
The influence on the application of blockchain technology in art trading.
|Polatoglu and Ekin |
|User attitude (ATT)||Personal position on whether to adopt blockchain technology when trading art.||Ajzen |
|Behavioral intention (BI)||Personal tendency to adopt blockchain technology in art trading.||Ajzen & Fishbein |
|Dimension||Cronbach’s α||Dimension||Cronbach´s α|
|User attitude||0.939||Auction house initiative||0.862|
|Fitness Index||Adaptation Standard||Results of Model Fitness Analysis in This Study||Mode Adaptation Judgment|
|Perceived risk -> |
Auction house initiative
|Perceived risk ->|
|Auction house initiative-> |
|Government support-> |
|Perceived risk -> trust||−0.713||0.036||−5.486||***||0.483|
|Auction house initiative -> |
|Trust -> user attitude||0.628||0.039||15.873||***||0.711|
|Trust -> behavioral intention||0.113||0.051||2.421||0.024 *||0.782|
|User attitude -> |
|H1||Perceived risk has a positive impact on auction house initiative||Established|
|H2||Perceived risk has a positive impact on government support||Established|
|H3||Auction house initiative has a positive impact on government support||Established|
|H4||Government support has a positive impact on trust||Established|
|H5||Perceived risk has a negative relationship with trust||Established|
|H6||Auction house initiative has a positive impact on user attitude||Established|
|H7||Trust has a positive impact on user attitude||Established|
|H8||User attitude has a positive impact on behavioral intention||Established|
|H9||Trust has a positive impact on behavioral intention||Established|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Liang, P.-H.; Chi, Y.-P. Influence of Perceived Risk of Blockchain Art Trading on User Attitude and Behavioral Intention. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13470. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313470
Liang P-H, Chi Y-P. Influence of Perceived Risk of Blockchain Art Trading on User Attitude and Behavioral Intention. Sustainability. 2021; 13(23):13470. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313470Chicago/Turabian Style
Liang, Pi-Hsia, and Yan-Ping Chi. 2021. "Influence of Perceived Risk of Blockchain Art Trading on User Attitude and Behavioral Intention" Sustainability 13, no. 23: 13470. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313470